Very interesting. It's not my job to help them, but if true they should put him at second chair right now.

I remember that in 1984 Mario Cuomo was the Barack Obama of his day with his gift of oratory on display in the keynote Dem convention address that would send Walter Mondale to the White House and end the Reagan debacle. He was the moment and then somehow he fizzled out. So did Mondale - one day later.

Reagan went on to win 49 states, lol. The whole soup-line-America message was way off track. We were growing at an unprecedented rate at that time and he was clueless to it. The economic doldrums then really were from his predecessor. The ridiculed shining city on a hill became more true than ever imagined as the Soviet republics and East bloc all reached to copy our freedoms. No one in America who wanted in to the prodiuctive economy was left behind. It wasn't trickle down, it was all around. Just a bunch of BS. Really Cuomo was one or two years too late to say that Reaganomics would not work. By 1984, it already had.

As I listen again, any chance John Edwards stole the failed message of 'The Tale of Two Cities'?

Cuomo is below the national radar screen now. I don't keep up with NJ much les NY politics but everything I have read or heard about him is he is doing a good job in NY. Even talk show host Bob Grant who hated Mario said this not too long ago.

The fact he is his father's (flaming liberal) son, and the fact he is a Democrat makes it hard for me to be objective butthis is what I am hearing.

"Why does every statement about Buraq's personal history seem to be a lie?"

It used to be said of the Clintons: It isn't that they lie, but that they lie with such ease!

The challenge for Obama would be to post something he says that is just straight-up truth. What is the longest string of sentences on anything relevant he has uttered that was truthful? Personal history, energy, taxes, spending, defense, war, immigration, healthcare, student loans, Bush's fault, Republicans in congress, any of it?

What a bunch of hogwash. What's the expression, "If you don't have the facts on your side, use B S.

That's why I like Snopes; it separates the truth from bloggers like "Twitchy".

Obama's statement is true. “We know the ‘challenge’ of student loan debt.” No lies; it's just the wacko bloggers who lie.

After graduation, Obama and his wife did have substantial student debt. It tookthem years to pay it off; it hung over their head just like it hangs over doctors and other recent lawyer graduates,not to mention less lucrative diplomas. So yes, Obama can honestly say he understands the the challenge of student loan debt.So does Michelle.

In contrast, Romney's dad just wrote a check for the full amount. Same thing for Ann. Like paying for the groceries. Maybe the pen was silver too?

There’s no doubt that in the early years, the Obamas made little money as they accumulated student debt.As Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Tribune wrote during the last campaign, Obama worked his way through college and law school – including jobs selling trinkets, making sandwiches at a deli in Hawaii and working as a telemarketer pitching subscriptions to The New York Times. Michelle’s early jobs included work as a camp counselor and a typist/assistant for the American Medical Association. In the early years, nobody would call the Obamas rich.

As usual, we can count on JDN to carry water and attempt to distort and distract. As JDN is both stupid and dishonest, it's hard to tell which is at play here. Snopes, like JDN has an agenda of blind loyalty to Buraq and will use it's supposed credibility to spin.

ABC News has, thus far, ignored its own revelation that, contrary to insinuations made by Barack Obama, the then-private citizen and his wife "were making enough to be considered 'wealthy' by the president’s own definition in the years before his loans were paid off." ABC relegated this story to a posting on its website, not mentioning it on Wednesday's World News or Nightline.

The story was similarly skipped on Thursday's Good Morning America. World News did touch on student loans, but only to accuse Mitt Romney of flip-flipping on the issue. David Muir dug up a clip of the Republican telling a college student to shop around and not expect the government to bail him out.

On Tuesday, President Obama said this: "We only finished paying off our student loans off about eight years ago...That wasn’t that long ago. And that wasn’t easy – especially because when we had Malia and Sasha, we’re supposed to be saving up for their college educations, and we’re still paying off our college educations."

Yet, as Jon Karl explained on ABCNews.com, Obama was sometimes making over $250,000 ($272,759 in 2002). He reported:

But according to their tax returns, which are available on the White House website, the Obamas had a healthy, six-figure income by the year 2000 (the earliest return available). And for at least two years before his loans were paid off, Obama, by his own definition, made so much they were wealthy enough to pay higher taxes. Here’s a rundown of the president’s income, according to his tax returns, in the years before he paid off his student loans:

2004: $207,647

2003: $238,327

2002: $259,394

2001: $272,759

2000: $240,505

In 2001 and 2002, the Obamas would have met the $250,000 standard the president has set for those wealthy enough to afford to pay more taxes.

It’s also notable that the Obamas didn’t claim deductions for student loans on any of those years, most likely because they made too much money to qualify for the student loan deduction.

Interesting, pertinent information, but apparently not worthy of appearing on the actual ABC network.

In sharp contrast to his tough talk about ethics reform in government, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., approached a well-known Illinois political fixer under active federal investigation, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, for "advice" as he sought to find a way to buy a house shortly after being elected to the United States Senate.

The parcel included an adjacent lot which Obama told the Chicago Tribune he could not afford because "it was already a stretch to buy the house."

On the same day Obama closed on his house, Rezko's wife bought the adjacent empty lot, meeting the condition of the seller who wanted to sell both properties at the same time.

Rezko had been widely reported to be under investigation by the U.S. attorney and the FBI at the time Obama contacted him and has since been indicted on corruption charges by a federal grand jury in a case that prosecutors say involves bribes, kickbacks and "efforts to illegally obtain millions of dollars."

This week, a federal judge in Chicago ordered the Rezko trial to begin Feb. 25.

Obama maintains his relationship with Rezko was "above board and legal" but has admitted bad judgment, calling his decision to involve Rezko "a bone-headed mistake."

Rezko's behind-the-scenes connection in the Obama house deal became public as Rezko revealed personal financial details as he sought to post bail.

While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The house sold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was $625,000.

Obama denies there was anything unusual about the price disparity. He says the price on the house was dropped because it had been on the market for some time but that the price for the adjacent land remained high because there was another offer.

Obama then expanded his property by buying a strip of the Rezko land for $104,5000, which the senator maintains was a fair market price.

Obama later told the Chicago Sun-Times, "It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe he had done me a favor."

Obama had known Rezko long before the house deal, calling him a "friend."

An ABC News review of campaign records shows Rezko, and people connected to him, contributed more than $120,000 to Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate, much of it at a time when Rezko was the target of an FBI investigation.

"It surprised me that late in the game he [Obama] continued to take contributions from somebody who was under a rather dark cloud in the state," said Cynthia Canary of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, a group that has worked closely with Obama and supported his legislative efforts.

Yes GM it is a good example of what bullsh*tters SNOPES can be. They don't have ANY idea how much Barack Obama paid for college each year nor how much of his college cost the TAXPAYER paid or other benefactors paid but ready to put their full reptution on the lineconfirming whatever he said. They also don't have any knowledge of his college records to know what he got for the money he or we paid.

SNOPES: "It took them years to pay it off"

Is "years" a quantitative answer?? Why did it take years? Because it involved taxpayer subsidized interest rates with NO INCENTIVE to pay off any sooner.

SNOPES: "he understands the the challenge of student loan debt"

Really?? Debt burden is measured in percentages of SOMETHING. Not at SNOPES. I he was burdened, what was the burden? NUMBERS! Median income is less than 1/5 of their income. No he doesn't the challenge of the others.

"So does Michelle"

The wives are off-limits. Ooops. The wives are back in.

SNOPES: Michelle made 317k plus 45,000 from a Tree House where served on the Board

Just last week serving on a board IS NOT WORK and now it is worth as much as the median family income in America. Same poster posts. Attack one; defend the other. What a crock.

To SNOPES": Between Occidental and Columbia he took a trip around the world.

I guess they missed that part. The asked if it was true! On Federally subsidized student loans - or coke dealing money? They don't say.

To SNOPES: "even though he has a brilliant mind."

Unable to verify? Where are the records. Or was that the part where they said FALSE.

It turns out SNOPES is the blogger like "Twitchy". Who JDN is "Twitchy"?

We are in the student financial aid mess right now and they don't even offer the federally subsidized loans up to the full amount of private college tuition costs no matter your merit scholarship level.

They choose to keep these financial details private which is good and then they pretend they have given us all the information to know they are just like us which is a G*d Damned lie.

If he paid the loans off with money that came from when the book royalties escalated in public life as SNOPES says then he DOESN'T know the burden the others face. The definition of being the rock star is the guy on the stage, not the masses in the audience.

Looking at SNOPES I see their independence was verified by FactCheck of the Annenberg Project. Speaking of being on the Board of Directors, not being a job, isn't that where Barack Obama was the Chair? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge An incestual profession. Just the facts is what JDN writes too. Maybe they all worked together over there on bringing us the truth, lol.

EVERYONE, on the left and the right, except a few xxxxxx seem to accept Snopes.com as impartial and FACTUAL.

GM's story was listed under "Urban Legends" right next to "Martians invade Minneapolis". LOL

Oh that's right, you too prefer Twitchy! Or at least GM does. That was GM's source; see above. Great name, huh? LOL

As for Annenberg, everyone knows they are first rate. As for Obama being on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board (a fund raising organization for education), I think he volunteered, he "served" so NO it wasn't work. My local community has a fund raising group for schools too. Or maybe you call it work if you volunteer for your church? I doubt if even Romney calls that "work". I don't.

This subject is dead. You get your butt(s) handed to you. May I suggest you move on....LOL

I was just reading at length in their current pieces and I was not impressed in the least. About a half a notch above Charles Blow with better disguise. Their conclusions are opinions and they are quite often misleading. MHO.

The board work for 45k was Michelle at the TreeHouse. The board work you attacked was of the candidate's wife. Barack's board was the incest with the thugs. He is clean in your book because he bought the house although he got the yard from a gangster. Suit yourself. I have no idea why you reply but can't read then come on with insults. But when you win an argument you really do make sure you have your t's dotted and your i's crossed. I'm impressed.

The cloak of media invisibility is slowly beginning to lift from Barack Obama's most important administrative leadership experience, helming an expensive educational reform effort in Chicago that failed to produce any measurable academic gains, according to the project's own final report.

Add in the fact that former Weatherman and admitted terrorist William Ayers (whom Obama described in the Philadelphia debate as merely a "neighbor") was head of the operating arm of the CAC, working with Obama on distributing scores of millions of dollars to grantees in the wards of the city, and you have a topic that the Obama campaign wishes to avoid at all costs.

A compliant media has averted its eyes so far. A timeline of Obama's career from George Washington University omits it. Why the McCain campaign has not raised more questions on the subject is a question beyond my pay grade. But there are signs it is on the case.

The four plus years (1995-1999) Barack Obama spent as founding chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) represent his track record as reformer, as someone who reached out in a public-private collaboration and had the audacity to believe his effort would make things better. At the time he became leader of this ambitious project to remake the public schools of Chicago, he was 33 years old and a third year associate at a small Chicago law firm, Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland.

This was a big test for him, his chance to cut his teeth on bringing hope and change to the mostly minority inner city school children trapped in Chicago schools. And he flopped big time, squandering lots of money and the time of many public employees in the process.

Given Senator Obama's lack of any other posts as leader of an organization, someone unschooled in the ways of the American media might expect that for months reporters have been poring over the records of the project to get an idea of how it managed to fail so badly. Examining the track record of the guy who wants to lead the federal government would seem to be part of the campaign beat for media organizations.

But as a matter of fact, until recently, only a few bloggers were looking into the most important organized effort ever led by Barack Obama, prior to his successful campaigns for public office.

The Cover-up

Now, it appears a cover-up is underway, in order prevent journalists and researchers from getting access to the records of this charitable project housed in a taxpayer supported library. And there is a mystery:

The UIC Library says it is acting on behalf of the donor, whom it refuses to name.

It took Stanly Kurtz, of National Review Online to ask permission to see the files held by the publicly-funded University of Illinois Chicago (UIC). After initially agreeing, The Richard J. Daley Library withdrew permission. Kurtz writes:

"The Special Collections section of the Richard J. Daley Library agreed to let me read them, but just before I boarded my flight to Chicago, the top library officials mysteriously intervened to bar access. Circumstances strongly suggest the likelihood that Bill Ayers himself may have played a pivotal role in this denial. Ayers has long taught at UIC, where the Chicago Annenberg Challenge offices were housed, rent-free. Ayers likely arranged for the files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to be housed in the UIC library, and may well have been consulted during my unsuccessful struggle to gain access to the documents."

It is highly unusual and legally questionable for a publicly-funded archive to deny access to records in its collection, particularly when they have a bearing on matters of intense public interest: the qualifications of a man seeking to be Commander in Chief.

But even if the university manages to stall release of the records until after the election, it is only drawing attention to the project. Already, the nation's mainstream media have taken notice (however imperfectly) of the University's unusual actions, albeit without exploring the subject in any depth yet.

In the midst of a heated presidential campaign, it is going to be hard to keep this interest in Obama's Annenberg years contained, now that it has surfaced.

A blogger, Steve Diamond, has put together enough data from public sources to seriously embarrass Obama over the closeness of his association with Ayers in the project, and to describe the wrong-headed and politicized approach taken by the project. Anyone can go to this page and look at the latter half of the very lengthy post to see the data uncovered by this intrepid researcher. At a minimum, it proves that Obama has seriously misled the public about his association with Ayers. And it documents and analyzes some of the complex left wing politics underlying the effort.

As the public begins to notice this outlines of the history of the CAC presented by Diamond, more questions are bound to be asked.

The First Cover-up

Diamond examined public documents, receiving cooperation from the Brown University Library, where the Annenberg Challenge Program national headuarters had been housed. Until, that is, Diamond's requests for further information fell on deaf ears following publication of a post highlighting a grant to one of Ayers' former revolutionary cohorts in the Weathermen. He writes:

"...while the representative from the university I originally corresponded with had been quite friendly and accommodating prior to my June 23 post, afterwards my additional requests for further information went unanswered. I did not pursue it at the time because I felt I had told a significant part of the story already. Thanks to the diligent work of Dr. Kurtz, however, we now know there is much more to know."

So the appearance of a cover-up actually began in June.

If Ayers were the sole point of interest in seeking the Annenberg Challenge files promised to Kurtz, all "132 boxes, containing 947 file folders, a total of about 70 linear feet of material", then the Obama camp might claim it was merely guilt-by association and persuade at least some of its own partisans. But the fact that Obama was in charge of a massive expensive project makes it indisputably a matter of proper vetting to examine his track record at delivering on promises of hope and change.

The Obama camp has already noted that it does not control the archives at UIC. All well and good, though it would be nice for the candidate to plead with the university and the mystery donor to let the sun shine on his track record. After all, he is a new kind of politician.

But even if he doesn't, the Annenberg Challenge is slowly entering the national consciousness, and that's very bad news for Barack Obama.

Is Tim Geithner the most politically partisan treasury secretary in history? Certainly sounds like it these days. As the government’s chief financial officer, he’s spending a lot of time firing campaign barbs at various Republicans and their policies.

Geithner has blasted Mitt Romney by name on several occasions. He frequently attacks Representative Paul Ryan and the GOP budget. And he recently fired a broadside at top-Romney economist Glenn Hubbard, who is presently dean of the Colombia Business School.

Responding to a Hubbard op-ed in the Wall Street Journal -- which calculated that the president’s spending plans would require an 11 percent tax increase on people earning less than $200,000 a year -- Geithner said, “That’s a completely made-up, remarkably hackish observation for an economist.”

Hubbard a hack?

Besides running a highly respected Ivy League business school, he was the chairman of President George W. Bush’s council of economic advisors. He also earned his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard.

But Hubbard is advising Romney, and before that he counseled Bush, so the very political Mr. Geithner blasted him as a hack.

By the way, all Hubbard did was calculate that even after all of Obama’s proposed tax hikes on millionaires, investors, and upper-end business people, revenues would rise by about $150 billion a year. But Obama’s budget schedules spending to rise by $500 billion a year. So Hubbard concluded that an across-the-board tax hike of 11 percent for everybody -- including below-$200,000 earners -- would be required.

... the arithmetic gap between spending and revenues per year is unmistakable. It’s not a hackish statement. It’s an informed opinion.

Seven Of The Most Disturbing Quotes From Members Of The Obama Administration

Birds of a feather flock together and so when we see Barack Obama stacking his cabinet with radicals, it tells us a lot about his mentality. Of course, the fact that his entire term in office has been nothing but a slow motion evisceration of the American dream should tell you a lot about how he thinks, too -- but a little more evidence is always welcome. Take a look at these quotes from members of Barack Obama's administration and then ask yourself what sort of man WANTS people like this to help him govern the American people?

1) "Somewhat more broadly, I will suggest that animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law." -- Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama Administration. Yes, we have someone in charge of regulations in D.C. who thinks pigs should be able to sue farmers and cats should be able to sue their owners. Do you think it's a coincidence that the cost of business keeps skyrocketing under Obama because of all the new regulations?

2) "Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’ The answer is yes, that’s what I’m telling you." -- Joe Biden, Vice President. When this is how the Vice President of the United States thinks, is it any wonder that this country may only be a decade away from defaulting on our debts and heading into an economic death spiral that we'll never recover from in the lifespan of anyone reading this column?

3) "There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer." -- Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State. Yes, the butcher of Syria is a real "reformer," isn't he? If you want to know why our foreign policy has been all bowing, "leading from behind," and chaos, look no further than our Secretary of State who knew nothing about foreign policy going in, but made a career out of being married to the right man.

4) "Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards." -- Eric Holder, Attorney General. Eric Holder is a throwback to the bad old days in America, when whether you got justice or not depended on the color of your skin. Is it any wonder he doesn't care about Mexicans or a white border patrol agent who lost his life because of Operation Fast and Furious? Is it a surprise that Holder turned a blind eye to the New Black Panthers engaging in voter intimidation and putting a bounty on George Zimmerman's head?

5) "When I became the NASA administrator — or before I became the NASA administrator — (Obama) charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering." -- Charles Bolden, NASA Administrator. When Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, he said, "That's one small step for a man; one giant leap for mankind." Well, while Obama goes on and on about "investment," "science," and "the future," we've actually taken one giant leap backwards since we no longer have a manned space program. Guess we needed to save that money to funnel into the businesses of people who contribute to Obama's campaign.

6) "One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society." -- John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. So, we have a man with the morals of Joseph Mengele advising the President on science. It also shouldn't be lost on anyone that while Obama is yammering on about a "war on women," he has someone on his staff who has come out in favor of FORCED ABORTIONS.

7) "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." -- Steven Chu, Energy Secretary. Ever wonder why gas prices are so high under Obama? Could it be because Obama's Energy Secretary wants to dramatically increase the price of gas? Gas is more than $8 a gallon in most of Western Europe. Guess that gives them something to shoot for if Obama gets a second term.

It was striking to me that when Genevieve met Obama he was a 22-year-old college graduate, but hadn’t yet figured out what his name was. In high school, he had generally been called “Barry,” but by this time he apparently was looking for something more formal:

(From the book): She called him Bahr-ruck, with the accent on the first syllable, and a trill of the r’s. Not Bear-ick, as the Anglophile Kenyans pronounced it, and not Buh-rock, as he would later be called, but Bahr-ruck. She said that is how he pronounced it himself, at least when talking to her.

JH: I find that very odd. Think how fundamental a part of you your name is: when you were in elementary school, did you have any doubt about what to call yourself? At 22, Obama was still trying out names.

"I adopted a more formal, mature name at 19. I have a friend who changed names at 30. "

Guessing you started using the more formal name you already had (?) and you knew how to pronounce it? Did you add or subtract a trill to the r's and change the syllable with the accent? If so, I wasn't trying to offend, just trying to get to know a guy who invites us to read two autobiographies about his past personal life.

When naming my daughter, your thought crossed my mind, what name sounds good for a little girl and what version of her name will she want as a business professional or as President. I have tried not to call certain relatives by the -y or -ie version of their first name in front of their colleagues, assuming they prefer the more professional version as surgeons.

I get the part where he went from Barry to Barack and dropped the last name of a step father period of his life gone by. Maybe the confusion over pronunciation was due to the absence of his father but his mother knew his father and no doubt used his long name a time or two.----------------------" (From the book): She called him Bahr-ruck, with the accent on the first syllable, and a trill of the r’s. Not Bear-ick, as the Anglophile Kenyans pronounced it, and not Buh-rock, as he would later be called"

“If you struck from Barack Obama’s vocabulary the first-person singular pronoun, he would fall silent, which would be a mercy to us and a service to him, actually,” Will said. “Because he was been so incontinent for the last three years that you wind up with, as you said, [an] Ohio State University with empty seats.”

• First President to Preside Over a Cut to the Credit Rating of the United States Government

• First President to Violate the War Powers Act

• First President to Orchestrate the Sale of Murder Weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels

• First President to issue an unlawful "recess-appointment" while the U.S. Senate remained in session (against the advice of his own Justice Department).

• First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico

• First president to intentionally disable credit card security measures in order to allow over-the-limit donations, foreign contributions and other illegal fundraising measures.

• First President to Defy a Federal Judge's Court Order to Cease Implementing the 'Health Care Reform' Law

• First President to halt deportations of illegal aliens and grant them work permits, a form of stealth amnesty roughly equivalent to "The DREAM Act", which could not pass Congress

• First President to Sign a Law Requiring All Americans to Purchase a Product From a Third Party

• First President to Spend a Trillion Dollars on 'Shovel-Ready' Jobs -- and Later Admit There Was No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Jobs

• First President to sue states for requiring valid IDs to vote, even though the same administration requires valid IDs to travel by air

• First President to Abrogate Bankruptcy Law to Turn Over Control of Companies to His Union Supporters

• First President to sign into law a bill that permits the government to "hold anyone suspected of being associated with terrorism indefinitely, without any form of due process. No indictment. No judge or jury. No evidence. No trial. Just an indefinite jail sentence."

• First President to Bypass Congress and Implement the DREAM Act Through Executive Fiat

• First President to Threaten Insurance Companies After They Publicly Spoke out on How Obamacare Helped Cause their Rate Increases

• First President to Openly Defy a Congressional Order Not To Share Sensitive Nuclear Defense Secrets With the Russian Government

• First President to Threaten an Auto Company (Ford) After It Publicly Mocked Bailouts of GM and Chrysler

• First President to "Order a Secret Amnesty Program that Stopped the Deportations of Illegal Immigrants Across the U.S., Including Those With Criminal Convictions"

• First President to Demand a Company Hand Over $20 Billion to One of His Political Appointees

• First President to Terminate America's Ability to Put a Man into Space.

• First President to Encourage Racial Discrimination and Intimidation at Polling Places

• First President to Have a Law Signed By an 'Auto-pen' Without Being "Present"

• First President to send $200 million to a terrorist organization (Hamas) after Congress had explicitly frozen the money for fear it would fund attacks against civilians.

• First President to Arbitrarily Declare an Existing Law Unconstitutional and Refuse to Enforce It (DOMA)

• First President to Tell a Major Manufacturing Company In Which State They Are Allowed to Locate a Factory

• First President to refuse to comply with a House Oversight Committee subpoena.

• First President to File Lawsuits Against the States He Swore an Oath to Protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN, etc.)

• First President to Withdraw an Existing Coal Permit That Had Been Properly Issued Years Ago

• First President to Fire an Inspector General of Americorps for Catching One of His Friends in a Corruption Case

• First President to Propose an Executive Order Demanding Companies Disclose Their Political Contributions to Bid on Government Contracts

• First President to Preside Over America's Loss of Its Status as the World's Largest Economy (Source: Peterson Institute)

• First President to Have His Administration Fund an Organization Tied to the Cop-Killing Weather Underground

• First President to allow Mexican police to conduct law enforcement activities on American soil

• First president to propose budgets so unreasonable that not a single representative from either party would cast a vote in favor ("Senate unanimously rejected President Obama's budget last year in 0-97 vote", Politico, "House Votes 414-0 to Reject Obama’s Budget Plan", Blaze)

• First President to press for a "treaty giving a U.N. body veto power over the use of our territorial waters and rights to half of all offshore oil revenue" (The Law Of The Sea Treaty)

• First President to Golf 90 or More Times in His First Three Years in Office

But remember: he will not rest until all Americans have jobs, affordable homes, green-energy vehicles, and the environment is repaired, etc., etc., etc.

I finally agreed with Doug and others that the first *jerk* president was born in the US -

and now this.

I assume he let the literacy agency use the "born in Kenya" thing knowing it wasn't/isn't true?? Or was he born in Kenya and now he is lying? Which is it? Did he lie by proxy till 2007 or is he lying since 2007?

I will stick to my story that he was not born in Kenya. I believe there was one Kenyan relative who said he was but misspoke. Obama Sr had other wives with other children so it can be confusing. Her statement caused a story but proved nothing. This story is different, and strange. Literary Agent now says it was a mistake. Yes it was! But by Whom?http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/05/17/literary_agent_says_1991_booklet_was_a_mistake.html"This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me -- an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii."

His denial on beholf of the President could be true. He also could be covering for an Elizabeth Warren type mistake where he caused or allowed that story to run when convenient but not when it prevents hius current eligibility. Whatever he said to the agent left the impression that he was he was not from around these parts and they billed it up as a headline. If these were autobiographies, wouldn't the answer be in the book?

Was Obama SO BIG and so detached in 1991 that he never read what his own agent was writing on his behalf? I don't believe that, nor that the books were non-fiction. I am visualizing a more likely scenario that he has his promotional materials taped on his bathroom mirror for when he asks the who's the fairest question each morning. He liked the promotion (my guess), and didn't until later see the conflict with his future aspiration.

An "agent", BTW, "is one who acts for, or in the place of, another, by authority from him". Not a pundit, stalker or casual observer.

The leaflet with the retraction means nothing, but it it validates the request to see and judge ther birth certificate. The birth certificate was released and created its own confusion. I think Sheriff Joe is the most prominent person to question it, no offense to him. It had a number of strange things about it but it certainly has not been proven to be a forgery.

In contrast, take a look at what happened with a 'real' forgery just minutes after 60 Minutes released it's National Guard letter. Readers of Free Republic and Powerline blog ripped it to shreds and by this point in the process Dan Rather was unemployed, Powerline was Time Magazine's blog of the year and SeeBS had quite a black eye.

"An "agent", BTW, "is one who acts for, or in the place of, another, by authority from him". Not a pundit, stalker or casual observer."

Exactly. The *first* jerk President knew this was on there. Indeed one can rightly wonder if he told them he was born in Kenya for some reason as opposed they made the claim based on some sort of misrepresentation on purpose or by mistake. But the FACT it wasn't changed till 2007 clearly shows he made no effort on his part to correct the dishonest misrepresentation.

He was milking the idea of him being born in Kenya for some reason. I am not clear what that reason would be.

To have never contacted them to correct their mistake for 16 years - until - he ran for Prez - is not just strange - it is deliberate fraud.

But it won't matter. The wagons have again circled around the first Jerk and he will be insulated.

Yet this does speak to HIS character. For a few who cannot decide who to vote for in November it might make a shred of difference. But for the majority of those who cannot make up their mind by now about him - it will probably come down to what the gas prices are the day of the election. I don't know how else to explain how the "independents" seem to keep changing their minds from one day to the next based on poll results that are all over the place. Unless the pollls are just that screwed up.

The Breitbart website has made a claim that they will vet him if no one else will. If this was their only piece or best shot they would not be using it in May. Born in a faraway land was what he was comfortable with saying to make himself hip, mystic or popular. Same with changing the pronunciation of his name, same with other things. Romney I think gets it. Concede all the hip and glib qualities to the opponent. If you need a rock star, if you want the best delivered Greek column cliches and platitudes, the guy who hangs with the most NBA stars and hollywood types, a guy who can slow jam the news best on late night, I'm not your guy. If you want policy change in Washington that will get the economy going again and give your kids and grandchildren a better future, then please take a look.

The problem with birth certificate type thinking is that we need to defeat Barack Obama on the issues, in the polling booth. We need to have that argument in order to win it. 2010 was like an outlier type poll unless it can be followed up with a direct win, in a Presidential year, on the issues.

In MN we went through something like the idea that Obama could be removed by ballot ineligibility or caught in a personal failing. Sen. Paul Wellstone was a liberal as they come, way left of even Minnesota, but popular. He died in a plane crash, Republicans even took the seat for a term, but never defeated him on the issues. Today Al Franken sits in that seatand didn't need a cornhusker kickback to support every new power of government. The failed ideology did not die and never was defeated.

That is why in another thread I felt Brian Wesbury is in a dreamworld when he comes out and states socialism as in Europe is in its death throes. This ideology will never die. Yes it may wax and wane a little but it is definitely the malignant cancer that cannot be eradicated. We will always have soicalists, liberals, communists. We will always have those who will call for the government to give them what they can't do on their own. I am not against government. But for me government is to maintain law and order, protect our country, and be an advocate of its people not control us, our soiciety, our culture.

As for me my government failed me when it couldn't protect me against organized crime. When in my own life I needed help they wouldn't lift a finger. Government is not the answer to every one of the world's/life's ills.

Yet there will always be those who will never admit this, or accept it.

Bottom line this failed ideology will never be defeated. Only kept at bay.

"Bottom line this failed ideology will never be defeated. Only kept at bay."

By defeated, I only mean mean to win by something like 53-46% like Obama did. Better would be to win by some margin in almost all demographic groups and states so that we the people would mean we are all part of pulling together to solve this.

The rob Peter, pay Paul, tax the guy behind the tree thing is not my idea of equal protection, we the people or consent of the governed.

Go ahead and soak the rich - at any rate of taxation that YOU want to pay on your first and every dollar. Go ahead and start a new program - that you can provide for EVERYONE and is paid for by getting rid of all the old failed ones.

The blowback on austerity in Europe is proof that socialism is alive and well and is in my opnion contrary to Wesbury's argument that the sprial downward of the Euro is the beginning of the end for socialism.

We sit on the fulcrum here in the US as pointed out by many on the right.

Perhaps a few on the left governors Brown in Kalifornia, Cuomo in NY recognize the problem with some attempts at reforms.

I guess because they are crats they can get away with it without being blasted from the left.

My = the possessive case for I and me. And I thought it was the people's congress.

President Obama yesterday: "...this euro project...means that there’s got to be some more effective coordination on the fiscal and the monetary side and on the growth agenda. And I think that there was strong intent there to move in that direction. Of course, they’ve got 17 countries that have to agree to every step they take. So I think about my one Congress, then I start thinking about 17 congresses and I start getting a little bit of a headache. It’s going to be challenging for them." http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/21/remarks-president-nato-press-conference

They are separate articles, one and two. The legislative branch defined first is not any part of his executive branch, but is where fiscal bills originate. The Federal Reserve was also an act of congress.

Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, N.J., came across as a moderate, sensible Democrat when he said on "Meet the Press" Sunday that negative political ads are "nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright."

Booker, a Barack Obama surrogate, later tried to walk back his comments. He posted a video in which he explained that he was expressing his frustration with negative campaigning when he spoke out, effectively undermining the president's re-election narrative. (Booker also referred to the biggest non-story in politics last week, about a political consultant who recommended that a super PAC use Wright in an anti-Obama ad. That ad didn't get made.)

But there is no walking back from Booker's disapproval of the Obama campaign's attacks on Bain Capital, the private equity firm that Mitt Romney founded. Last week, Team Obama released an ad that told the story of a Kansas steel mill that Bain bought in 1993 and that went bankrupt in 2001. In the ad, laid-off steelworkers had some choice words for Romney. Like "vampire" and "job destroyer."

The problem with such ads, Booker said Sunday, is that "we're getting to a ridiculous point in America." Pension funds, unions and others invest in companies like Bain Capital. Bain's record has been to grow businesses. To Booker, Bain Capital has been good for America. To Obamaland, Bain Capital has been bad for America.

As a mayor, Booker said, he, too, has had to lay off workers "because it's the only way" his "government would survive." He added, "Call me a job cutter if you want."

I should note that PolitiFact rated as "mostly true" this statement from the Obama campaign: "After purchasing the company, Mitt Romney and his partners loaded it with debt, closed the Kansas City plant and walked away with a healthy profit, leaving hundreds of employees out of work with their pensions in jeopardy." Missing from the story: the fact that Romney wasn't in charge anymore and that in 2001, the steel industry was in a world of hurt -- with low steel prices and high production costs -- which drove a lot of mills out of business.

I would add that the steelworkers in the political ad were talking about the heyday of the steel industry, which occurred long before Bain stepped in to rescue an ailing mill.

Monday, a reporter asked Obama about Booker's remarks and the role of private equity. The president explained that the goal of private investment is to "maximize profits," whereas a president's job is to make sure that everyone has "a fair shot" and that everyone pays his or her "fair share" of taxes.

That's the problem with Obama; he thinks he's the fairness czar. He didn't say that a president is supposed to create an environment that nurtures business success. He said a president is supposed to make sure that nobody walks away with too much.

When you're president, Obama said, "your job is to think about those workers who get laid off and how are we paying for their retraining." Obama's war is a war on private money. He thinks his job is to create job training programs, not create an environment that creates real jobs.

A brief search on the subject. Amongst Jews there were many memories of Poles very happy to see them exterminated. Is this fair?

Is this accurate? I don't really know but I do remember growing up many olders Jews discuss this subject. My impression is very anecdotal but I was left the impression many Poles as well as Germans were quite OK with them being sent to death camps.

Perhaps this article points out that this perception is wrong or unfair. I certianly agree to expect anyone to risk his/her own life to save others during such a situation is expecting people to be worthy of Sainthood and not realistic.

In short I agree Brock made a foolish mistake. But I do not take my eye off the fact many Poles were not only not Saints, they may well have been gleeful. Is that fair or not I don't know:

Analysts had predicted the Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index would climb to 70 in May. Instead it dropped more than four points to 64.9, the biggest drop since last fall.

It's the latest in another round of disappointing numbers. Just a few weeks ago, new jobs came in "unexpectedly" low. And before that, GDP data disappointed.

Underperforming economic indicators have been so common under Obama that the only mystery is why the experts keep getting caught off guard.

In the case of the Consumer Confidence Index, the current number — bad as it is — doesn't even tell the whole story.

First, it's worth noting the index has fallen for three months. Even if it had hit forecasts, it would still be well below 90, which signals a healthy economy.

The current reading is worse when you realize that under President Bush — you know, the guy who Obama says ruined the economy — confidence averaged 88.

That's despite two recessions, a terrorist massacre and two long wars. Throughout Obama's "recovery," the index has averaged 57.

To really get a sense of how dismal Obama's confidence ratings have been, you need to compare them to those during the Reagan recovery (for a visual display, see chart).

The 1981-82 recession lasted almost as long as the last one — 16 months vs. 18 months — and pushed unemployment higher. Yet confidence roared back as Reagan's economic policies powered a strong and sustained recovery, with the index topping 100 most months.What reason do people have to feel confident today?

Almost three years into the recovery, unemployment is still above 8%, household incomes are down more than 5%, gasoline prices remain at historic highs, and the economy can only eke out meager gains.

On top of this, we learned this week that housing prices are back at their mid-2002 levels. So, naturally, Obama's again making excuses and shifting blame.

It's the fault of the long recession, he says. The economy is still facing "head winds." The GOP is "standing in the way" of his new stimulus spending plans and creating "uncertainty" with its calls for more spending cuts in exchange for another debt ceiling increase.

The real reason the economy is so vulnerable to "head winds" is because Obama's recovery has been so lousy. That has nothing to do with the recession, since deep recessions are typically followed by even more powerful recoveries.

Indeed, the only reason the economy continues to struggle for breath is because Obama continues to choke off its air supply. Even now, he has no clue how his policy prescriptions of vast new federal spending, gargantuan debt, massive regulation, a government health care takeover, and endless bashing of businessmen, profits and the "rich" are hampering growth.

Still, we are confident of one thing. The economy will come roaring back to life once all that stops.

"A brief search on the subject. Amongst Jews there were many memories of Poles very happy to see them exterminated. Is this fair?... http://www.polishresistance-ak.org/10%20Article.htm"-----------------CCP, This quote from your link says it all: "Poland was the only country in occupied Europe where giving any kind of help to the Jews resulted in summary execution of the helper and his or her family."

When death to your family was at stake in a Nazi military occupation, it is hard to judge any lack of resistance. I assume there was no death camp in Poland that preceded Nazi-occupation. Poles suffered enough in WWII and don't need to be blamed in American President misspeak for hosting the Holocaust.

You would think the President pushing anti-wall street / anti-wealth rhetoric now, not much different from 1930s politics, would be more careful.

Obama has shown his lack of historic knowledge previously: "I had an uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps."

I agree. No one can in their right mind expect people to risk their own lives and family's lives in such a situation.

I really don't know that Poles were any more or less antisemitic than other Europeans.

But some did hold thumbs up watching Jews pass by on trains to death camps.

As for Poland being the only country where those who helped Jews were executed - actually I doubt that very much.

When I have more time I could perhaps do a more thorough search. This article was something I just pulled up. The author's points may well be more accurate than not. I just don't know.

I had a patient who recalled a story to me as a young girl in occupied Czechoslovakia. A Jew suddenly barged into their house and hid under the bed. A "gestapo" agent knocked on the door and asked her mother if she saw this man. At the risk of her own life and her daughter's life she said no.

After the Gestapo left the Jewish man came out from under the bed and was advised to hide in the barn. The next morning when they went to the barn he was gone.

She told me the gestapo WAS just like in the movies. They wouldn't take any bull from anyone and would quite quickly have blown them away if they realized they were lying and hiding a Jew.

I had tears in my eyes. Would I have been as courageous? I think one can not know until that "moment of truth" as they say.

The woman told me this story because she was immensely proud of the bravery and kindness her mother showed. I couldn'ty agree more.

Every journalist not in the re-election tank has been shredding President Obama's recent claim that spending growth has been modest on his watch. But kudos in particular to the Associated Press for hitting several White House accounting gimmicks in a dispatch last week.

Team Obama has lately been arguing that the astronomical spending blowout of fiscal 2009 was President Bush's fault and that outlays have since climbed only moderately. This means ignoring that Mr. Obama's $831 billion stimulus was enacted during that notorious fiscal year that straddles both presidencies. And AP cataloged various other distortions embedded in the Obama claim. For example, early in his term Mr. Obama signed an omnibus appropriations bill that also increased spending in fiscal 2009. This was less than a month after the stimulus.

Beyond the AP report, it's also worth noting that Mr. Obama endorsed other 2009 spending that he now blames for today's deficits. As a senator, Mr. Obama was habitually absent during significant votes. But one that he did show up for in 2008 was the Senate's vote on the 2009 budget resolution, and he voted "yes." Mr. Obama showed up again in the fall to vote for TARP. One can reasonably label this as Bush spending, but it occurred with an explicit Obama approval.

Where Senator Obama did oppose the spending patterns of the Bush years, it was often, as with Medicaid, because Mr. Obama wanted to spend more. Speaking of health care, and given all of this attention on the Obama spending history, it should not be forgotten that the big taxpayer bills generated by ObamaCare are still to come.

Is federal spending really the issue that Barack Obama wants at the center of this campaign?